Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that mention identifiers are auto-resolved from URLs/slugs/URNs, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate/failed comments.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no redundant filler; every clause conveys a distinct capability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors (threaded reply, mention resolution, content checking left to schema). It omits return/error semantics, but annotations and the rich schema largely fill the remaining gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including each parameter and the content_check enum, so the schema carries the load. The description's mention of URL/slug/URN resolution largely restates the mentions.identifier schema text, adding little beyond baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Comment on a LinkedIn post') and immediately names its distinctive capabilities (threaded replies, @mentions), which cleanly separates it from read-side siblings such as linkedin_get_post_comments and linkedin_get_nested_comments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies when the tool is appropriate by describing threaded replies and mentions, but never states when to use it versus alternatives like linkedin_react_to_post or linkedin_create_post, nor any preconditions (e.g., must be connected to comment).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.